Re: [Vo]:Q-wave may be weak
you don't compare the same level of understanding DGT reactor, like Rossi, and Brillouin are intrinsically safe for the same reason, melting DGT internet supervision is a maintenance problem, unrelated to stability/safety, except on long term knowledge and failure anticipation DGT have a phenomenological model of the reaction, useful to stabilize it. (Rossi normally also, it is an engineering need) DGT use a pulse width/frequency modulation to control the reaction. They don't talk of their controller, but there are not many solution (it should be predictive model based) Rossi don't tell about the method of control (probably not pulse but, according to the delay, the average power input) but say he use the classic predictive model method... Having the good theory might be useful, but not so sure, since the most important is to know the behavior of the reaction according to transient event (temperature/pressure/vibration/(un)loading)... good phenomenological model can be more useful for everyday stability. however theory can help about intrinsic safety, and off-limit knowledge. for be the breakthrough of Brillouin is their proposed theory, which first is a revolution because it says that nickel is not the fuel, but the catalyst, but also the H/D/T/H4/He4 process (look like Takahashi TSC, but step by step). The 511keV gamma is a good point for them (beta+ consequence of H4 decay to He4, leading to e+/e- disintegration), but like He4 it is not an unequivocal signature. 2012/4/21 Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com compare this to DGT: internet supervision of reactors Rossi: intrinsically safe: self-stopping in case of overheating
Re: [Vo]:Is aneutronic fusion properly funded?
Eric Lerner foists a standard canard on us at the end of his speech. The focus fusion device will produce electricity directly from x-rays and cannot replace the liquid fuels: oil and gasoline; on the other hand, cold fusion can. Lerner’s competition is coal and natural gas used in electrical generation. On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 11:07 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Brief Video - Plasma Fusion -- hoax or breakthrough reality? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49p0cZEisTA Any opinions on whether aneutronic fusion research is being shortchanged?
Re: [Vo]:Is aneutronic fusion properly funded?
Neither can cold fusion, initially. In focusfusion, you'd have to use batteries, but, what's the problem with that? 2012/4/22 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Eric Lerner foists a standard canard on us at the end of his speech. The focus fusion device will produce electricity directly from x-rays and cannot replace the liquid fuels: oil and gasoline; on the other hand, cold fusion can. Lerner’s competition is coal and natural gas used in electrical generation. On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 11:07 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Brief Video - Plasma Fusion -- hoax or breakthrough reality? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49p0cZEisTA Any opinions on whether aneutronic fusion research is being shortchanged? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Boeing Electric Airliner---LENR Application=???
It can be extremely useful to incorporate 45 megawatts of LENR power into a stealth aircraft. This capability will allow the stealth aircraft designer a true UFO like performance via a hybrid ion jet engine. From the article on Military jet engines…see Under Stealth http://engines.fighter-planes.com/jet_engine.htm *Eliminating the pilot, as well as any fins, will do much to enhance stealth qualities. This will focus increased pressure on the need to devise truly stealthy propulsion system…* ** *I have numerous documents, all published openly in the United States, which purport to explain how the B-2 is even stranger - far stranger - than it appears. Most are articles published in commercial magazines, some are openly published US Patents, while a few are open USAF publications by Wright Aeronautical Laboratory and Air Force Systems Command's Astronautics Laboratory. They deal with such topics as electric-field propulsion, and electrogravitics (or anti-gravity), the transient alteration of not only thrust but also a body's weight. Sci-Fi has nothing on this stuff….* Very interesting…take a look. Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Your political predilections have forced a disconnect in the logic of your position. If Rossi has sold his system to a military customer, the requirements of the current military grand strategy of automating war fighting will force a Tom Clancy like development of Robot warriors. Do you think that E-Cats will heat out houses in Afghanistan? No way my friend. On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.comwrote: Rossi says that President Obama is the greatest president of all times Now I am convinced Rossi is full of s)t! The rest of your analysis reads like a Tom Clancy novel and unfortunately i think Rossi's actions are better captured in the novel Matchstick Men. On Wednesday, April 18, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: I meant they do NOT spend millions just to know. The whole idea is preposterous. If anyone in the press found out about such a thing, they would be dragged before Congress and everyone involved would be fired. Actually, any involvement in cold fusion at any level would be a scandal. But especially, buying something for a million bucks and leaving it at the factory untested is simple out of the question. - Jed
[Vo]:Self Bending Light..into a circle=?
Greetings Vortex-L Self Bending Light: http://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-maxwells-equations-self-bending.html Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex
RE: [Vo]:Which is Better: Dishwasher or Washing Dishes by Hand?
From Jed: Dishwashing machines are much better. The use only hot water, at temperatures much higher than a person can stand even with rubber gloves. This helps disinfect the dishes. They have aux heaters in case the incoming hot water is not hot enough. I'll certainly grant the obvious evidence that temperatures achieved within a typical dishwasher will easily split most germ particles from the nuclear cores of dishes and utensils. But which procedure is more energy efficient - using a dishwasher to split off the unwanted particles, or washing them away by hand? Which method uses fewer natural resources too? Just curious. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Which is Better: Dishwasher or Washing Dishes by Hand?
The dishwasher rarely breaks dishes. By hand it's, You wash, I'll drop. T
Re: [Vo]:LENR in lithium batteries ?
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Since 3H (tritium) has such a unique decay signature as it goes to 3He (helium-3) one has to wonder if radiation was being monitored during the battery testing. Probably not, since without deuterium in higher proportions, this kind of radiation would be unexpected. However, it is naïve to think GM would admit to this, even if it was a possibility. They stand to lose more than $10 billion is the Volt turns out to be a flop. Did you see this tidbit? http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1366dfpLayout=blogdfpLayout=blogf_src=designnews_gnewsdfpPParams=ind_184%2Cindustry_auto%2Cbid_318%2Caid_242177dfpPParams=ind_184%2Cindustry_auto%2Cbid_318%2Caid_242177doc_id=242177page_number=1 http://goo.gl/jahTv T
Re: [Vo]:Which is Better: Dishwasher or Washing Dishes by Hand?
OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Which method uses fewer natural resources too? The study cited here indicates that the machine uses fewer resources. These studies probably compare the machine to what anthropologists call the American method of washing dishes or clothes, which is to use running water. Americans, along with people in India and several other countries, think that running water is clean water. We suspect that still or pooled water is contaminated. In some other countries, people tend to fill a sink or bucket with water, soak the dishes and then wash them. This takes less water. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:LENR in lithium batteries ?
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Since 3H (tritium) has such a unique decay signature as it goes to 3He (helium-3) one has to wonder if radiation was being monitored during the battery testing. Probably not, since without deuterium in higher proportions, this kind of radiation would be unexpected. However, it is naïve to think GM would admit to this, even if it was a possibility. They stand to lose more than $10 billion is the Volt turns out to be a flop. Did you see this tidbit? http://goo.gl/jahTv Interesting comment from GM old-timer: There may be more to the story that I can share. I am in Detroit and I did work for GM for 25 years including 5 years on EV1, almost 20 years ago. I quit over lack of intelligence in management. SAE has some very destructive standard battery tests and this was probably a test to heat the batteries to 200 degrees C above ambient (about 375F). Very severe but necessary test to see what happens and what gases are released. It was mentioned in Detroit that Hydrogen Sulfide was present (commonly known as sewer gas) which will explode. (in auto industry we refer to this as a thermal incident). I do not know what created the H2SO4. My belief is that when GM retired out all of their old dogs and then hired a bunch of new college kids, they loss an incredible amount of knowledge, skills and experience. I truly believe, the test people were playing video games and then a bell rang and they said OMG! and then the thermal incident happened. I think it is fortunate that only one person was hurt, but it does say something about keeping your old dogs around. Experience tells you why it is important to follow test protocols and procedures very carefully. They probably didn't. No excuse for this. I think the same issue occurred in the design of the Volt battery pack. I'm an old dog and one look at the pack, I knew they were not going to be able to retain the cooling fluid consistently in production, let alone in a crash shake-up. When 50% ethylene glycol is allowed to evaporate, pure ethylene glycol does burn. Thus the several months between crash and thermal incident. Did GM learn anything from this? Doubt it. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:LENR in lithium batteries ?
zero sales for two months -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Apr 22, 2012 12:26 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:LENR in lithium batteries ? -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Since 3H (tritium) has such a unique decay signature as it goes to 3He (helium-3) one has to wonder if radiation was being monitored during the battery testing. Probably not, since without deuterium in higher proportions, this kind of radiation would be unexpected. However, it is naïve to think GM would admit to this, even if it was a possibility. They stand to lose more than $10 billion is the Volt turns out to be a flop. Did you see this tidbit? http://goo.gl/jahTv Interesting comment from GM old-timer: There may be more to the story that I can share. I am in Detroit and I did work for GM for 25 years including 5 years on EV1, almost 20 years ago. I quit over lack of intelligence in management. SAE has some very destructive standard battery tests and this was probably a test to heat the batteries to 200 degrees C above ambient (about 375F). Very severe but necessary test to see what happens and what gases are released. It was mentioned in Detroit that Hydrogen Sulfide was present (commonly known as sewer gas) which will explode. (in auto industry we refer to this as a thermal incident). I do not know what created the H2SO4. My belief is that when GM retired out all of their old dogs and then hired a bunch of new college kids, they loss an incredible amount of knowledge, skills and experience. I truly believe, the test people were playing video games and then a bell rang and they said OMG! and then the thermal incident happened. I think it is fortunate that only one person was hurt, but it does say something about keeping your old dogs around. Experience tells you why it is important to follow test protocols and procedures very carefully. They probably didn't. No excuse for this. I think the same issue occurred in the design of the Volt battery pack. I'm an old dog and one look at the pack, I knew they were not going to be able to retain the cooling fluid consistently in production, let alone in a crash shake-up. When 50% ethylene glycol is allowed to evaporate, pure ethylene glycol does burn. Thus the several months between crash and thermal incident. Did GM learn anything from this? Doubt it.
[Vo]:Tesla and Solar City Projects
http://gigaom.com/cleantech/tesla-solarcity-quietly-selling-building-battery-projects/ Tesla, SolarCity quietly selling building battery projects By Katie Fehrenbacher Apr. 17, 2012, 5:00am PT Electric car company Tesla and solar roof installer SolarCity have quietly been making deals that could one day lead to dozens of sales of battery projects coupled with rooftop solar systems built at both residential and commercial buildings in California. SolarCity confirmed the energy storage plans with me, and the duo have submitted at least 70 applications for projects to attempt to receive rebates from the California Public Utility Commission’s Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP), which provides incentives for distributed energy generation. more
Re: [Vo]:Boeing Electric Airliner---LENR Application=???
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: It can be extremely useful to incorporate 45 megawatts of LENR power into a stealth aircraft. This capability will allow the stealth aircraft designer a true UFO like performance via a hybrid ion jet engine. How would you get a 45 MW LENR reactor into a stealth aircraft? Are you thinking of something along the lines of Moore's law for LENR cells? I wouldn't be surprised if there ended up being something like this. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Self Bending Light..into a circle=?
Well, all I can say is, if you would have taken the amount of time I have over the yrs, to look up into the nightsky (no telescope) over the years, looking up in the nightsky, you would have more-than-likely seen any number of star-light lights way-up in-space in-orbit orbit traveling along at some relative speed,,, of which, many have performed obvious arcing turns,,, and/or, decelerated to a dead-stop in a matter of 10 sec's or so,,, and/or speed back up in a completely different direction until reaching a relative orbital speed. I've watched countless numerous single lights varying in magnitude, and/or flash light from very dim to so bright, that it almost knocks you off your feet. I've seen multi-orders coordinate their light, so as to make you think a *craft* is down low moving slowly over the residential area that you live in. Two obvious shapes of these multi ordered lights, were circular triangular, and a few others appeared as somewhat small constellations. I've watched the singular lights flash in some random-order, while others flashed in a repetative sequence or pattern. I've watched several that were just cruising along, but would shut-off right at at the position of a stationary star. I've also seen a number of incidences where one light would just be traveling along in a straight line, and shut-off exactly as another one would come-in (no light) from a 90 deg angle and turn-on... wow, it's just amazing... a 90 deg turn at at least 10,000 mi's per hr ... yeah sure! why not!.. I can only say that that was some phenominally unbelievable maneuvering the likes of which, I simply don't believe !. The joke of it is that, no-matter what anyone down here may think about it, what has been going-on up there, has been well-before 'our' time began ha, now all we have to do is figure it all out (I already did that). Just so you know, everything we produce is a response to what has been seen over the countless years out of the corner of our eye, and/or directly in front of some of us, up close personal, and/or first-hand witnesses that described *you-know-who* boo, your hooody! Greetings Vortex-L Self Bending Light: http://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-maxwells-equations-self-bending.html Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex /HTML
Re: [Vo]:Boeing Electric Airliner---LENR Application=???
the power density of Defkalion hyperion, is about 5kW for 10g of powder, 5kg of reactor, plus pipes,pump and bottle (should be negligible if well integrated and MW sized)... 45MW mechanic, imply 150-200MW thermal, so about 200ton of reactor, plus turbines. it is not far from the current total weight of that plane... so there should be work to make the reactor lighter, but you don't compare a marine diesel engine with a jet engine. With good engineering, they could make a reactor much below 50tons. if miniaturization is a success, 90MW mech. for takeoff could be possible, or maybe hybrid (electric/lenr, or jet/lenr). so not impossible, but much work. 2012/4/22 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: It can be extremely useful to incorporate 45 megawatts of LENR power into a stealth aircraft. This capability will allow the stealth aircraft designer a true UFO like performance via a hybrid ion jet engine. How would you get a 45 MW LENR reactor into a stealth aircraft? Are you thinking of something along the lines of Moore's law for LENR cells? I wouldn't be surprised if there ended up being something like this. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Boeing Electric Airliner---LENR Application=???
From a Rossi interview, http://pesn.com/2012/01/14/9602012_Momentous_Breakthroughs_Announced_During_Anniversary_E-Cat_Interview/ *It was also clarified that each individual home E-Cat system will utilize one reactor core. This is different than what was stated only a couple months ago, which indicates just how rapidly progress is being made. If the reactor core is the size of a single pack of cigarettes (about 85 cubic centimeters) and can produce 10 kilowatts of power, this makes the power density 117 watts per cubic centimeter -- a super high value!* Using lightweight Nantenna technology an heat to electric power conversion of over 50% can be achieved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nantenna This anthology of anti-gravity and reactionless technology papers shows the interest that Boeing and the US research labs had it this electric propulsion technology. http://www.scribd.com/doc/25664401/803-Page-Collection-of-Papers-on-Anti-Gravity-Research The articles from Nick Cook in Jane’s Defense Weekly are especially informative. *Boeing, the world's largest aircraft manufacturer, has admitted that it is working on experimental anti-gravity projects that could overturn a century of conventional aerospace propulsion technology if the science that underpins them - science that senior Boeing officials describe as valid - can be engineered into hardware. As part of the effort, which is being run out of Boeing's PhantomWorks advanced research and development facility in Seattle, the company is trying to solicit the services of a Russian scientist who claims he has developed 'high-' and 'low-power' anti-gravity devices In Russia and Finland. The approach, however, has been thwarted by Russian officialdom.The Boeing drive to develop a collaborative relationship with the scientist in question, Dr Evgeny Podkletnov, has its own internal project name: 'GRASP' -Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion.A briefing document on GRASP obtained by Jane's Defense Weekly sets out what Boeing believes is at stake. If gravity modification is real, it says, it will alter the entire aerospace business. The report was written by Jamie Childress, principal investigator for Boeing's propellant less propulsion work at the Phantom Works in Seattle.* IMHO, some of this weird stuff went into the B2 bomber. Regards: Axil On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: the power density of Defkalion hyperion, is about 5kW for 10g of powder, 5kg of reactor, plus pipes,pump and bottle (should be negligible if well integrated and MW sized)... 45MW mechanic, imply 150-200MW thermal, so about 200ton of reactor, plus turbines. it is not far from the current total weight of that plane... so there should be work to make the reactor lighter, but you don't compare a marine diesel engine with a jet engine. With good engineering, they could make a reactor much below 50tons. if miniaturization is a success, 90MW mech. for takeoff could be possible, or maybe hybrid (electric/lenr, or jet/lenr). so not impossible, but much work. 2012/4/22 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: It can be extremely useful to incorporate 45 megawatts of LENR power into a stealth aircraft. This capability will allow the stealth aircraft designer a true UFO like performance via a hybrid ion jet engine. How would you get a 45 MW LENR reactor into a stealth aircraft? Are you thinking of something along the lines of Moore's law for LENR cells? I wouldn't be surprised if there ended up being something like this. Eric -
[Vo]:Ignition
Hi, Here's a little conundrum that has troubled me for some time. Take a cup of gasoline and place it in open sunlight. It will slowly evaporate. Bring a flame near it and it will suddenly ignite. Why don't the UV rays from sunlight cause ignition? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Ignition
Sunlight will cause ignition, with only slight focusing. Magnifying glass is sufficient. Be my guest to try it, but stand back... This indicates that it is not only energy per photon that is important, but energetic photon-density per unit area. -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Hi, Here's a little conundrum that has troubled me for some time. Take a cup of gasoline and place it in open sunlight. It will slowly evaporate. Bring a flame near it and it will suddenly ignite. Why don't the UV rays from sunlight cause ignition? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Ignition
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 22 Apr 2012 15:14:40 -0700: Hi Jones, You are probably correct, but that just shifts the definition of the problem. The question then becomes, why is density important? (I'm looking for an answer involving a molecular level analysis.) Sunlight will cause ignition, with only slight focusing. Magnifying glass is sufficient. Be my guest to try it, but stand back... This indicates that it is not only energy per photon that is important, but energetic photon-density per unit area. -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Hi, Here's a little conundrum that has troubled me for some time. Take a cup of gasoline and place it in open sunlight. It will slowly evaporate. Bring a flame near it and it will suddenly ignite. Why don't the UV rays from sunlight cause ignition? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Pirelli Foundation funds successful LENR Cold Fusion Project
On 2012-04-20 14:09, Ron Kita wrote: Greetings Vortex-L If you use a Google Chrome browser it will automatically translate this for you: http://www.greenme.it/informarsi/energie-rinnovabili/7458-fusione-fredda-e-cat-studenti It can be seen even in Italian that the Pirelli Foundation funded the research and a patent application was filed. Sorry for the late reply, I haven't seen this thread until a few minutes ago. That Pirelli Foundation founded this is only partially correct, to tell the truth. Although Pirelli *has* funded cold fusion experiment in the past, as far as I know this one started as an independent project. The Pirelli Foundation might have brought some help later on in this case. Anyway, in short, several teachers (with of course valid degrees and expertise in several areas relevant to this kind of experiment) from the Leopoldo Pirelli industrial high school in Rome with the involvement of some of their students, replicated a Mizuno-type electrolytic CF cell with some modifications, of which a patent application was filed by the name of the school, so it is essentially public and open source. More details, video and data will supposedly come up later, but the project organizer mentions a 400% excess heat in an email recently written to 22passi: http://22passi.blogspot.it/2012/04/fusione-fredda-scuola-la-studiano-e.html (please use Google translate) The cell reportedly uses nanopowders in free form, which kind of reminds me of Brian Ahern's patent. Details about power levels or the materials used haven't been provided yet (will be soon), but I personally don't expect anything more than milliwatt-range excess heat. Still, that CF experiments have been replicated and presented in a high school environment, sounds incredible. It is already getting the attention of local newspapers and it is expected, also with the potential involvement of 22passi, to generate more media reactions, hopefully to the benefit of LENR research and public awareness. Stay tuned, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Ignition
Let me give this a try. I suspect that the magnitude of energy delivered by the UV rays is not quite enough to allow ignition of a small region of the gasoline. It reminds me of the ignition of gunpowder where a flame can be placed upon a small amount of powder and it takes some time before ignition occurs. I have always felt that if you consider a small volume of the material you would have the following occur. Heat or explosive effect is generated within the volume of material, but the energy escapes through the surface area of that volume. If the heat is reduced too much after flowing through the surface, then it can not cause the adjacent volume to ignite. Just my two cents worthmaybe wrong but this is what I have always thought. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: VORTEX vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Apr 22, 2012 6:02 pm Subject: [Vo]:Ignition Hi, Here's a little conundrum that has troubled me for some time. ake a cup of gasoline and place it in open sunlight. It will slowly evaporate. ring a flame near it and it will suddenly ignite. Why don't the UV rays from sunlight cause ignition? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Ignition
A further thought. Consider the fuel intake valve of an automobile. We all know that these can not be perfect and thus allow absolute isolation between the extremely hot gases within the cylinder and the intake mixture. Some explosive gas and heat must get to the intake mix but it does not ignite. I suspect that the heat injected within each small volume of input mixture does not reach that required to trigger a reaction. If the leak becomes too large then backfires would most likely result. I think of the LENR reaction as being similar. The melted cavities that are seen on active experiments appear to me to be a cascade of individual small reactions. There is enough energy released within an active volume to spread outside of that region into the next sensitive one. This process would continue until the heat generated per volume no longer supports the heat loss through its surface area at which time the reaction quenches. There may be methods of controlling the energy generation volumes such as with magnetic fields which may be DGT's technique. The energy transfer through the surface areas of the tiny volumes of active LENR regions may be in some other form than heat such as radiation but the cascade would be similar. I can imagine that a focused beam might even occur where the reactions proceed along a relatively narrow path similar to a laser amplification. If this were the case then a cone shaped expulsion of melted material could appear which looks suspiciously like the pictures I have seen. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Apr 22, 2012 6:21 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ignition In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 22 Apr 2012 15:14:40 -0700: i Jones, You are probably correct, but that just shifts the definition of the problem. he question then becomes, why is density important? I'm looking for an answer involving a molecular level analysis.) Sunlight will cause ignition, with only slight focusing. Magnifying glass is sufficient. Be my guest to try it, but stand back... This indicates that it is not only energy per photon that is important, but energetic photon-density per unit area. -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Hi, Here's a little conundrum that has troubled me for some time. Take a cup of gasoline and place it in open sunlight. It will slowly evaporate. Bring a flame near it and it will suddenly ignite. Why don't the UV rays from sunlight cause ignition? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html egards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Ignition
At 05:02 PM 4/22/2012, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Here's a little conundrum that has troubled me for some time. Take a cup of gasoline and place it in open sunlight. It will slowly evaporate. Bring a flame near it and it will suddenly ignite. Why don't the UV rays from sunlight cause ignition? I don't know the specific energies involved, but my sense of this is as follows: First of all, yes, it's obvious: gasoline does not ignite just because an individual molecule is oxidized, as it will be if, say, a cosmic ray with hign energy hits it. You can have a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen, an explosive mixture and it will just sit there, even if you expose it to, say, a few high-energy photons or energetic particles. There is obviously a hump to get over to allow the oxidation reaction to occur. Under conditions well below ignition temperature, if a single reaction occurs, it cannot raise the temperature of the local environment enough, the products are immediately cooled. However, at -- or very close to -- the ignition temperature, only a little extra heat is needed. The closer to ignition temperature, the less the needed heat, until, at ignition temperature, the oxidation starts happening en masse, it all heats up and a wave of ignition passes through the material. Badly explained, perhaps. But the basic idea is that at low temperatures, a little puff of heat doesn't do anything. A single reaction is just that, it has no observable effect. UV light probably isn't energetic enough, by the way. I don't think it would be absorbed by the gasoline. But I don't know. The gasoline, by the way, doesn't ignite just because you bring a flame near it, not directly. Rather, the vapors will ignite from contact with the flame, and the ignition, from that mixture of gasoline and air, can ignite the gasoline.
Re: [Vo]:Ignition
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:52:35 -0500: Hi, [snip] I don't know the specific energies involved, but my sense of this is as follows: First of all, yes, it's obvious: gasoline does not ignite just because an individual molecule is oxidized, as it will be if, say, a cosmic ray with hign energy hits it. You can have a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen, an explosive mixture and it will just sit there, even if you expose it to, say, a few high-energy photons or energetic particles. There is obviously a hump to get over to allow the oxidation reaction to occur. Under conditions well below ignition temperature, if a single reaction occurs, it cannot raise the temperature of the local environment enough, the products are immediately cooled. However, at -- or very close to -- the ignition temperature, only a little extra heat is needed. The closer to ignition temperature, the less the needed heat, until, at ignition temperature, the oxidation starts happening en masse, it all heats up and a wave of ignition passes through the material. Badly explained, perhaps. But the basic idea is that at low temperatures, a little puff of heat doesn't do anything. A single reaction is just that, it has no observable effect. This appears to tie in with Dave's reply. The ratio of surface area to volume increases as the radius decreases, until at the molecular level the heat released by a single reaction escapes in all directions and the amount captured by any given molecule in the neighborhood isn't sufficient to ignite it. However when many reactions occur in close proximity to one another the heat has nowhere to go and a chain reaction is initiated. UV light probably isn't energetic enough, by the way. I don't think it would be absorbed by the gasoline. But I don't know. I think it is energetic enough, it only has to trigger a chemical reaction (e.g. sun burn). (UV-A is 3-4 eV which is as much as you get from most chemical reactions. Production of e.g. H2O yields less.). BTW Jones' point about a magnifying glass is also a good one. Since it will ignite combustible substances, and all it does is concentrate photons in a small region, those photons are clearly energetic enough on an individual basis. The gasoline, by the way, doesn't ignite just because you bring a flame near it, not directly. Rather, the vapors will ignite from contact with the flame, and the ignition, from that mixture of gasoline and air, can ignite the gasoline. Actually, the liquid gasoline never burns. Only vapor burns. This is true in an engine as well. The smaller the droplets, the more easily they evaporate and provide the necessary vapor. I have seen an oil fire quenched simply by rapidly cooling (water) the outside of the metal container that held the oil, thus stopping the evaporation. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Ignition
I was considering the gasoline vapor ignition question further and thought that a simple math example of the effect would shed light upon the subject. An intense amount of local heating is generated when a small region of vapor mix is ignited by some means. This released heat energy then proprogates outward from the ignition volume into the surrounding material and if the intensity is adequate the flame will proceed onward. Recall that volume of a sphere is proportional to radius cubed while surface area is proportional to radius squared. A result of these relationships is that less heat per unit area escapes into the surrounding medium as the size of the active sphere becomes smaller. This implies that a certain minimum volume of material must be ignited before the surrounding mix can see enough energy for it to ignite as well. The UV rays apparently do not activate a volume that is great enough for further activity. Lets choose an easy example to calculate which actually bears little comparison to the actual case at hand but demonstrates the process. Assume that we have ignited the gas vapor mix within a volume that releases 1 joule of heat energy. Our test region has a radius of 1 cm for the example. The area of a sphere is 4*pi*R*R or 4 * 3.14159 * 1 centimeter * 1 centimeter = 12.566 square cm. The energy density leaving the sphere is thus 1 joule / 12.566 square cm. Perhaps this is enough to ignite the material at the surface of the sphere and the flame would proprogate. Now lets only ignite a ½ cm radius sphere of vapor mix. The heat released would now be ½ * ½ * ½ or 1/8 joule. But the area would also shrink to the new value of 4 * pi * ½ * ½ = 3.1416 square cm. Thus the net energy density leaving our new smaller volume is exactly ½ the original amount which might not be enough to ignite the adjacent material. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: VORTEX vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Apr 22, 2012 6:02 pm Subject: [Vo]:Ignition Hi, Here's a little conundrum that has troubled me for some time. ake a cup of gasoline and place it in open sunlight. It will slowly evaporate. ring a flame near it and it will suddenly ignite. Why don't the UV rays from sunlight cause ignition? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: VORTEX vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Apr 22, 2012 6:02 pm Subject: [Vo]:Ignition Hi, Here's a little conundrum that has troubled me for some time. ake a cup of gasoline and place it in open sunlight. It will slowly evaporate. ring a flame near it and it will suddenly ignite. Why don't the UV rays from sunlight cause ignition? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Ignition
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 9:59 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Actually, the liquid gasoline never burns. Only vapor burns. This is true in an engine as well. The smaller the droplets, the more easily they evaporate and provide the necessary vapor. Does this follow from the fact that the reaction is an oxidation reaction, in which oxygen is required? Since insufficient oxygen is contained in the liquid, only vapors oxidize? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Ignition
Yes, that is correct. Liquid gasoline does not burn without oxygen present. Explosives have all of the needed ingredients 'built in so they do not require extra oxygen from the air. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Apr 23, 2012 1:05 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ignition On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 9:59 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Actually, the liquid gasoline never burns. Only vapor burns. This is true in an engine as well. The smaller the droplets, the more easily they evaporate and provide the necessary vapor. Does this follow from the fact that the reaction is an oxidation reaction, in which oxygen is required? Since insufficient oxygen is contained in the liquid, only vapors oxidize? Eric
